Theory and Practice of Modern Bilingual Lexicography: the Problem of Representation of Polish-Ukrainian Set Expressions

Abstract.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MODERN BILINGUAL LEXICOGRAPHY: THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION OF POLISH-UKRAINIAN SET EXPRESSIONS

Tetiana Kosmeda

Department of Ukrainian Studies, Institute of Russian Philology, Faculty of Neophilology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poznan, Poland

Available 15 November 2014.

Abstract

Relevance

Being sovereign democratic states, Poland and Ukraine have a good tradition of good neighbourhood and cooperation. It is nowadays when the Polish and Ukrainian nations are most active in demonstrating mutual understanding, unity of opinions, outlook, intensifications of old and new cultural relations that is primarily topical in the period when Ukraine is in the process of entering the EU. Partnership relations of nations enter new phase that also influence language contacts and requires that experts in the Humanities be more active in research and scientific work. European aspirations of Ukraine have an impact on the choice of scientific priorities in the field of Humanities in all the European countries.

Obviously this choice is one more impetus for linguo-, ethno-, cultural and ethnographic researches, particularly in the field of studying such a fragment of LPW as set expressions of Polish and Ukrainian linguocultures that represent national identity, history, culture, mentality of nations. Nowadays Linguistics has a number of lingual and ethnoculturological comparative research aimed at Polish-Ukrainian set lingual stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents), which can be represented in the field of lexicography theory and practice.

Purpose

The purpose of the article is to analyze key lexicographic basis of the dictionaries of Polish-Ukrainian set lingual stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents) by highlighting certain problematic issues, drawbacks of the existing dictionaries and indicating the ways of correcting these drawbacks to design and implement lexicographic concept of the modern Polish-Ukrainian bilingual dictionary of set expressions.

Tasks

By analyzing critical scientific literature (reviews on the dictionaries by such authoritative researchers як M. Kochergan, К. Mizin, etc., academic articles focusing on the analysis of lexicographic products – О. Andreichenko, S. Vinnichenko, G. Pietrzak-Porwisz), as well as the texts of the very dictionaries to make an attempt of indicating the advantages, merits and methodological drawbacks or gaps of such modern bilingual Ukrainian-Polish dictionaries as: 1) “Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Word Equivalents” («Українсько-польський словник еквівалентів слова») compiled by А. Luchik, О. Antonova, І. Dubrovska (2011), 2) “Ukrainian-Russian-Bulgarian-Polish Dictionary of Similes” («Українсько-російсько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь») compiled by О. Levchenko (2011) while placing particular emphasis on the general concept of the dictionary and analysis of its Ukrainian-Polish projection; 3) “Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Interlingual Homonyms and Paronyms” ("Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і паронімів") compiled by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak (2008) – we shall focus primarily on phraseological homonyms which are represented in the dictionary.

Moreover, the analysis will also include classical dictionaries of Polish and Ukrainian paremiography where belong such editions as: а) "Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych" S. Adalberg (1889–1894) and b) “Halytsky–Rus’ Folk Proverbs and Sayings” («Галицько-руські народні приповідки») compiled and explained by I. Franko (second edition, 2006).

The dictionaries in question have become the focus of author’s attention due to the fact that by using S. Adalberg’s dictionary І. Franko was comparing Ukrainian paremias with Polish ones highlighting analogues and borrowings which is very important for modern Ukrainian-Polish or Polish-Ukrainian paremiography.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that there exists some experience of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography and paremiography, there are bilingual Ukrainian-Polish aspect dictionaries (dictionaries of homonyms, similes, word equivalents), however, there is insufficient experience of compiling paremia units as there is no parametric phraseological Ukrainian-Polish dictionary that would meet the needs of the society and modern theoretical lexicographical foundations.

Sometimes dictionary compilers violate fundamental principles of lexicographic activity and even do not provide any comments regarding their conceptual principles in the traditional Preface. To such violations also belong attempts of the lexicographers to record not the established lingual facts but accidental speech (occasional) formations: in some cases their usage is not confirmed by at least three-time usage in discourse practice. Modern dictionaries should be more consistent regarding provision of pragmatic characteristics of lingual units, in particular, it concerns discourse phraseological expressions – word equivalents. Illustrative material should be based both on the texts of classical artistic texts and the facts of modern live conversations which is usually in the focus of attention of the compilers of the dictionary under analysis.

We also think that, fortunately, Ukrainian-Polish paremiography has good traditions in the form of the dictionary compiled by І. Franko who was ahead of his time and partially represented pragmatic parameters of paremias regarding peculiarities and specific features of paremia usage in different communicative situations, he fixed typical set expressions of addressees and addressers depending on their status (age, gender, social functions, etc).

Perspective

Theory and practice of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography and paremiography requires new research efforts, first of all, elaboration of the modern original concept of the Ukrainian-Polish and Polish-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary or dictionary of set expressions that would correspond to the contemporary level of lexicography development, achievements of linguistics that is developing in the direction of interpretative pragmatics-oriented linguistics and would be based on the existing tradition.

Research highlights

► The article provides a fragmentary analysis of the achievements of modern Ukrainian-Polish lexicography products, taking into account the tradition of representation of set expressions in Polish and Ukrainian paremiography. ► Specific presentation of set expressions that include word equivalents and paremias in the broad meaning (phraseological units, proverbs and sayings) is analyzed. ► Certain methodological drawbacks of the dictionaries are identified and analyzed.

Keywords: word equivalents, paremiography, paremia, Ukrainian-Polish lexicography, set expressions, phraseological units.

References

Andreychenko, O. (2011) Stylistychni funktsiyi frazeolohichnykh odynyts' u movi hazety kintsya ХХ– pochatku ХХI.Kul'tura slova, 74, 124-130.

Vynnychenko, S. (2005) Konotatsiya yak komponent znachennya (na materiali ukrayins'kykh, pol's'kykh ta anhliys'kykh frazeolohichnykh odynyts' z komponentom voda. Problemy slov"yanoznavstva, 55, 197-211.

Halyts'ko-rus'ki narodni prypovidky, (2006). Halyts'ko-rus'ki narodni prypovidky. VTs LNU im. I. Franka, T. 1, T. 2, T. 3. L'viv.

Dey, О. I. (1963). Z fol'klorystychnoyi spadshchyny Ivana Franka. Nedrukovana peredmova do zbirky prysliv"yiv. Narodna tvorchist' ta etnohrafiya, 2, 94-96.

Kononenko, I. & Spivak, O. (2008) Ukrayins'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk mizhmovnykh omonimiv i paronimiv. Kyyiv: Vyshcha shkola.

Kosmeda, T. A. (2014). Kosmeda, T.A. Retsenziya. A. Luchyk, O. Antonova, I. Dubrovs'ka. Ukrayins'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk ekvivalentiv slova, K., 2011, 312 s. Movoznavstvo, 2, 85-87. Kyyiv.

Kocherhan, M. (2010). Retsenziya. Kononenko I., Spivak O. Ukrayins'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk mizhmovnykh omonimiv i paronimiv. – K. : Vyshcha shkola, 2008. – 343 s. Movoznavstvo, 1, 100-103. Kyyiv.

Levchenko, O. (2011). Ukrayins'ko-rosiys'ko-bolhars'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk porivnyan'. L'viv: Vyd-vo L'viv. Politekhniky.

Lozyns'ka, O. (2008). Retsenziya. Levchenko O. Ukrayins'ko-rosiys'ko-bilorus'ko-bolhars'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk porivnyan' (L'viv: Vyd-vo L'viv. Politekhniky, 2011. – 748 s.). Problemy slov"yanoznavstva, 57, 209-221.

Luchyk, A., & Antonova, O., & Dubrovs'ka, I. (2011) Ukrayins'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk ekvivalentiv slova. Kyyiv.

Mizin, K. (2012). Ukrayins'ko-rosiys'ko-bilorus'ko-bolhars'ko-pol's'kyy slovnyk porivnyan'. Movoznavstvo, 9, 89-92. L'viv.

Bilonozhenko, V. M., & Hnatyuk, I. S., & Dyatchuk, V. V. (2003). Slovnyk frazeolohizmiv ukrayins'koyi movy. K.: Naukova dumka

Franko, I. Ya. (1986). Lyst do M. P. Drahomanova vid 4 hrudnya 1883 r. Kyyiv: Naukova dumka, T. 48, 383-384.

Adalberg, S. (1889-1894). Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych. Warszawa: Druk EmilaSkiwskiego.

Pietrzak-Porwisz, G. (2006). Semantyka bieli w języku polskim i szwedzkim. Sdudia Linguistica, 123, 135-154.

Skorupka, S. (1985). Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, T. 1 (A – P), 904 s.

Słownik języka polskiego. E-portal: www.sjp.pwn.pl

Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. E-portal: www.nkjp.pl

Correspondence: tkosmeda@gmail.com

Vitae

Tetiana A. Kosmeda, Doctor of Philology, Professor (Ukraine), Ordinary Professor (Poland), Head of the Department of Ukrainian Studies at the Institute of Russian Philology of the Faculty of Neophilology of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (Poland). Among her scholarly interests – problems of pragmalinguistics, in particular, lingual axiology, lexicography, comparative linguistics, gender linguistics, lingual conceptology, and theory of speech personality.

Article.

Tetiana Kosmeda

УДК 811.161.2=162.1’374

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MODERN BILINGUAL LEXICOGRAPHY:

THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION OF POLISH-UKRAINIAN SET EXPRESSIONS

The article provides a fragmentary analysis of the achievements of modern Ukrainian-Polish lexicography products, taking into account the tradition of representation of set expressions in Polish and Ukrainian paremiography. Specific presentation of set expressions that include word equivalents and paremias in the broad meaning (phraseological units, proverbs and sayings) is analyzed. Certain methodological drawbacks of the dictionaries are identified and analyzed.

Keywords: word equivalents, paremiography, paremia, Ukrainian-Polish lexicography, set expressions, phraseological units.

Being sovereign democratic states Poland and Ukraine have a good tradition of good neighbourhood and cooperation. It is nowadays when the Polish and Ukrainian nations are most active in demonstrating mutual understanding, unity of opinions, outlook, intensifications of old and new cultural relations that is primarily topical in the period when Ukraine is in the process of entering the EU, period of tough political and social and economic situation. During this time Poland as a good-neighbour European country provides consistent and thorough support to Ukraine: partnership relations of nations enter new phase that also influence language contacts and requires that experts in the Humanities be more active in research and scientific work. European aspirations of Ukraine have an impact on the choice of scientific priorities in the field of Humanities in all the European countries. Obviously this choice is one more impetus for linguo-, ethno-, cultural and ethnographic researches, particularly in the field of studying such a fragment of LPW as set expressions of Polish and Ukrainian linguocultures that represent national identity, history, culture, mentality of nations.

Nowadays Linguistics has a number of lingual and ethnoculturological comparative research aimed at Polish-Ukrainian set lingual stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents), which can be represented in the field of lexicographic theory and practice by analyzing achievements and drawbacks of the available lexicographical sources and elaborating the concept of «Polish-Ukrainian Dictionary of the Common Set Expressions» which is absent both in Polish and Ukrainian Lexicography. Modern Linguistics has elaborated key principles of compiling bilingual lexicographic dictionaries which primary task undoubtedly is the most adequate representation of the corresponding lingual unit by means of another language.

This article aims at analyzing key lexicographic basis of the dictionaries of Polish-Ukrainian set lingual stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents) by highlighting certain problematic issues, drawbacks of the existing dictionaries and indicating the ways of correcting these drawbacks to design and implement the concept lexicographic concept of the modern Polish-Ukrainian bilingual dictionary of set expressions.

By analyzing critical scientific literature (reviews on the dictionaries by such authoritative researchers as M. Kochergan, К. Mizin, etc., academic articles focusing on the analysis of lexicographical products – О. Andreichenko, S. Vinnichenko, G. Pietrzak-Porwisz), as well as the texts of the very dictionaries we shall try to highlight the advantages, merits and methodological drawbacks or gaps of such modern bilingual Ukrainian-Polish dictionaries as: 1) “Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Word Equivalents” («Українсько-польський словник еквівалентів слова») compiled by А. Luchyk, О. Antonova, І. Dubrovs’ka (2011), 2) “Ukrainian-Russian-Bulgarian-Polish Dictionary of Similes” («Українсько-російсько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь») compiled by О. Levchenko (2011) while placing particular emphasis on the general concept of the dictionary and analysis of its Ukrainian-Polish projection; 3) “Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Interlingual Homonyms and Paronyms” («Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і паронімів») compiled by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak (2008) – we shall focus primarily on phraseological homonyms. Moreover, the analysis will also include classical dictionaries of Polish and Ukrainian paremiography where belong such editions as: а) «Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych» by S. Adalberg (1889–1894) and b) “Halychyna–Rus’ Folk Proverbs and Sayings” («Галицько-руські народні приповідки») compiled and explained by I. Franko (second edition, 2006). The dictionaries in question have become the focus of author’s attention due to the fact that by using S. Adalberg’s dictionary І. Franko was comparing Ukrainian paremias with Polish ones highlighting analogues and borrowings that is very important for modern Ukrainian-Polish or Polish-Ukrainian paremiography. Moreover, the very paremiographic concept by I. Franko is highly topical.

Great success of modern Ukrainian-Polish lexicography is «Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Word Equivalents» compiled by А. Luchyk, О. Antonova, І. Dubrovs’ka [Лучик, Антонова, Дубровська 2011]. This dictionary received lots of reviews published in the academic journals of Ukraine (see, for example, [Космеда 2014]). Publication of the dictionary was fostered by the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. It represents special type of language units that take an intermediate place in the system of phraseological units, word combinations and words. The units represented in the dictionary are equivalents to separate adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, stable combinations which have not formed their belonging to any part of speech. The role these language units play in everyday communication is extremely great as they not only have certain semantics but, first of all, pragmatics that is specifically presented in any national language and its discourse. In scientific literature these units are called «linking (cohesive) words», «structural words», «discourse words». They perform important pragmatic functions in communication. Polish and Ukrainian Linguistics has not as yet established good tradition of lexicographying discourse words, the problem is only being elaborated.

During the formation process discourse words can be continuously transformed into other parts of speech. Traditionally in Linguistics such transformed forms are called alternants, while the process of transference of certain parts of speech into other or their acquiring corresponding new meanings is logically called alternation. Peculiar character of these units is explained by the presence of pragmatic meaning that pushes out semantic, denotative and sygnificative meaning. Thus, such words have «chameleon-like nature» and are fully dependent on the context. At the same time in the text (discourse) they perform a special function of expressing key sense. The above-mentioned phenomenon is based on one of the key facts in Linguistics identified and explained by W. von Humboldt, namely: understanding language as activity. In Humboldt’s evolutionary theory the language is developing spontaneously as a natural organism. Language-formation process represents the spontaneous mass activity of generations. Development of the language manifests creative element of the folk spirit. Crystallization of the previous language-forming activity, accumulation of its results shapes and improves the structure of the language, making fruitful language transformations of the peculiarities of the national self-awareness and world outlook at every historical period of nation development. Due to infinite transformations and sense expansion the language is enriched with new sense, undergoes structural improvement and develops its functions.

Having agreed that word equivalents are the combinations characterized by stability, unity of meaning, mainly continuous, unchangeable form and in speech flow also make up one-stress unit – in the majority of cases they have one verbal stress, А. Luchyk adds up to this definition making rightly noting that word equivalents are characterized by non-morphological ways of formation, which are applied according to the established lingual schemes. This means that the units in question perform definite pragmatic functions.

The paragraph «Structure of the Dictionary» states that this dictionary includes «the most common unit of the Ukrainian language of this type and their correspondences in the Polish Language» (however, there is no information about their quantity), indicates the way material is presented – according to ABC principle – which is fully justified.

In the paragraph «The Register of the Dictionary and its Order» it is indicated that the dictionary provides orthoepic (stress and phonematic), morphological (indicators of the form of case endings, categories of gender and number, suffix morphemes) and punctuation (presence-absence of comma) variants, as well as optional components of word equivalents structure.

The paragraph «Grammar Information» includes data about remarks on morphology and syntax, provides information on the structure of word equivalents, stresses that within the structure of word equivalents there are units that cannot be correlated with any part of speech. In this case they are classified according to their syntactic function. For example, to such units belong word equivalents that function only as predicate components: під стать functioning as predicate; по силі functioning as predicate; у згоді functioning as predicate. Expletive constructions, which are also included into the register of the dictionary, also make up numerous group of word equivalents: на жаль functioning as an introductory word; як на біду functioning as an introductory word». Actually, the last two statements require some considerations. If it is not possible to consequently define morphological relation and this parameter is replaced with characteristic of performing certain syntactic functions or indication of the status regarding revealing in the context the category of modality, it does not it mean that instead of this information one could provide information that would be constant for all the units in question, would unify their status with clear explanation. It looks like that such a parameter can be indication of pragmatic functions. In the same way intonation construction, which is mentioned in this paragraph, also needs identification of communicative intentions (pragmatics).

Information in the paragraph «Stylistic Peculiarities» is well-thought over and valuable for representation of discourse practice peculiarities. By the way, the paragraph «Semantic Characteristics» partially already provides pragmatic information which would only improve if extended with corresponding parametrization, cf.: з подивом аналог прислівника (відчуваючи, виражаючи здивування). Pragmatic information is in brackets which are fully justified. The last helpful element that is present at the end of the dictionary «Literature Sources of the Dictionary»: to illustrate the material lexicographers used the material representing the most common types of discourse practice of Poles and Ukrainians which are realized in their artistic and publicist styles.

I am absolutely convinced that the compilers of lexicographic bilingual editions of set expressions should in future take into account methodology and the very register of the dictionary in question, including such a type of set expressions as word equivalents.

Of importance are basic ideas and register of «Ukrainian-Russian-Belarus-Bulgarian-Polish Dictionary of Similes» compiled by the Ukrainian Slavist researcher О. Levchenko [Левченко 2011], though it should be mentioned that in its Preface this dictionary fails to expressly represent the respective conceptual framework. The object of the dictionary is 200 phraseological units limited by structural and semantic principle – it includes only phraseological similes. The units are arranged according to ABC-topic principle. It should be stressed that the author of the dictionary combined lingual and speech units. This as well as other drawbacks of the dictionary are mentioned by K. Mizin in the published review [Мізін 2012]. The edition does not claim normative status that, in our opinion, is not methodologically justified. It has lots of individual author similes that are not fixed by the language system. Such expressions are characterized by one-time usage, therefore, they are not typical for the Ukrainian linguoculture and there is no need to search for their equivalents in other languages, which, following K. Mizin’s opinion, we consider to be a methodological mistake on the part of the author: one cannot combine set normative expressions and occasional, non-fixed and non-normative ones.

It is necessary to pinpoint sometimes unsuccessful choice of Polish analogues to similes in Ukrainian, e.g.: Ukr. пишна як пава and Pol. pyszny jak kaliszka świnia can hardly be called equivalents as in the Ukrainian language the meaning is ‘про гордовиту, зверхню людину’, while in Polish– ‘про повну, товсту людину’; Ukr. похмурий як свиня meaning ‘дуже відлюдькуватий’ is quite different from Polish smutny jak Świnia w deszcz or niewesoły jak Świnia w deszcz. К. Mizin also is of the opinion that it is necessary to be more accurate while describing semantics of register units as such Ukrainian similes as круглий наче бочка; круглий наче макітра; круглий як беривка; круглий як дерев’яна діжка; круглий як ковбичка; круглий як мішок пшениці «are presented in a very simplified way – ‘зовсім круглий; невисокий і товстий’» [Мізін 2012: 92].

Moreover, as it has been mentioned already, quite a number of similes provided in the dictionary by О. Levchenko are absent in the existing phraseological dictionaries and are unlikely to be fixed there as their functioning is too limited, e.g.: Ukr. простий як півлітри «московської»; простий як хліб на столі or its Polish analogue prostyj jak chleb meaning ‘надто примітивний’. Regarding this point К. Mizin states: «Let us indicate that О. Levchenko, being aware of the significance of the problem of simile interpretation according to usage / non-usage (occasional usage), does not share O. Kunin’s criteria, supported by us, regarding determination of lingual units usage, in particular, phraseological combinations (p. 50), – this or that unit being fixed at least in one dictionary or being used by three authors (preference should be given to the artistic, publicist and conversational discourses). It is understandable that such an approach to selecting material for the dictionary can be marked by some restrictions and here we share the opinion of О. Levchenko, however, application of the afore-mentioned approach would make it possible to «toss out» some similes irrelevant for the linguocultures that are compared, which to some extent «distort» the real characteristics of the lingual picture of the world» [Мізін 2012: 91].

Illustrations provided by О. Levchenko are not always correct, in particular it is true about the facts of the Ukrainian language, e.g.: Ukr. порожній (пустий) як дірка від бублика means ‘пусте місце, ніщо; абсолютно нічого’ (checked in the academic dictionary), though О. Levchenko defines it only as ‘абсолютно порожній’; the illustrations provided in the academic phraseological dictionaries are the following: Взяв з бублика дірку!.. (Іван Нехода, Хто сіє вітер, 1959, 157) or– Мовчи, Марино.., – не вгавав Левко. – Що я там маю з того шоферування? Дірку з бублика (В. Кучер); – Ця справа не варта дірки з бублика (М. Зарудний); Начальству – ордени, а споживачеві – дірка від бублика (З газети).

Let us compare this illustrative material with the examples provided by О. Levchenko, Ukr. «І хоча наша Будда-природа не має з Природою Будди нічого спільного, окрім поверхневих устремлінь наших порожніх, як дірка від бублика, тіл» (<www.hw.net.ua/art.php>); «Мабуть, не знайти сьогодні газети в Україні, де б цілий шестисторінковий номер присвячувався ювілеєві редактора – з великими портретами й фото сім’ї, виступами родичів, телеграмами, а потім цілий місяць публікаціями різних послань, пустими, як дірка від бублика, роздумами про надіслані привітання» (<www.tovarish.com.ua/print/Milioner_I2736.html>). It seems that the authors of the examples given above incompetently used this idiom in the meaning ‘порожній, беззмістовний’, and there is a logical question, what for do we need such illustrations? К. Mizin also observes a surprising fact of «the dictionary covering similes selected from samples of colloquial speech (forums, Internet chats, etc.)…» [Мізін 2012: 91]. It is evident that there should be a more thorough approach to selection of the material.

As the researcher does not provide a detailed description of status of the similes, does not present them as multi-aspect units with possible different types of classifications and takes into account only two types of them following one of the principles of cognitive linguistics, – attributive and scenario ones, – she includes into her dictionary the units of different types that provoke many questions, namely, can the following expressions from the dictionary be considered idioms: сильний як тур; дужий як слон? дужий як Самсон? міцний як граніт? вільний як орел etc.?

We agree with the well-known idea of the scholars (А. Ivchenko, О. Kunin, К. Mizin, V. Mokiyenko, etc.): despite the fact that simile belongs to the basic tropes, it is not that easy to understand and is the basis for modeling such tropes and figures as parallelism, metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, litotes, personification (prosopopeia, personification), etc. Considering theory of cognitive linguistics, these units also cause necessity of representing arguments-based typology.

Yet К. Mizin, analyzing the typology of simile, an attempt of which is made by О. Levchenko, states: «Typologization of similes offered by О. Levchenko allows for some restrictions. First of all, both attributive and scenario similes are formed around certain feature, therefore, it is very difficult to determine a boundary between primitive and non-primitive semantics of the attribute (…). Secondly, both types of similes are formed on the basis of cognitive situation that happen due to semantization of this or that feature, that means that the speaker may imagine – scene or scenario – a dirty pig or a dirty horse on a rop. Taking into account this fact, differentiation criteria of attributive and scenario similes offered by О. Levchenko is not completely clear» [Мізін 2012: 92].

We agree with К. Mizin, that «one should be careful while using the material of the dictionary» [Мізін 2012: 91], as a lot of questions arise in the process of using the dictionary, topical problems «come to the surface» which to some extent is useful as it brings about new ideas and results in scientific research.

A significant contribution to the development of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography is «Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Interlingual Homonyms and Paronyms» compiled by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak [Кононенко, Співак 2008]. In the «Preface» to this dictionary the authors explain in details the motives that made them remove one of the lexicographical Ukrainian-Polish lacunas, rightly emphasizing the frequency of mistakes in the speech of Poles or Ukrainians which are caused by interference. It is understandable that Ukrainian and Polish lingual units «may have common Indo-European or general Slavic origin, however, in the process of language development these words became different in their lexical meaning at the same time preserving their sounding, cf.: гора – góra, гострий – ostry, колір – kolor.

Certain pairs of interlingual homonyms and paronyms were formed due to the differences in words borrowed from the other languages under the influence of intralingual processes, cf.: аванс – awans, акорд – akord. The phenomenon of interlingual homonymy and paronymy can also appear from the process of word transfer from the Polish language into Ukrainian and vice versa, cf. the change of meaning in lexical pairs: вензель – with Polish. węzel, hulać – with Ukr. гуляти. Sometimes interlingual homonyms and paronyms emerge due to accidental coincidence in the soundings of words of two languages, cf.: ангельський – angielski» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 6], which, and it is logical, is reflected in the phraseological systems of these languages as mentioned by the authors of this dictionary stating that «in terms of usage complicated for speakers of the Ukrainian or Polish languages are also interlingual homonyms-phraseological units, which are different in semantics not because of the meaning of separate components but because of their general meaning, e.g.: з дня на день – z dnia na dzeń» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 7]. The authors have put such units separately which is really important.

Undoubtedly, one of the achievements of the authors of the dictionary is that they based their dictionary not only on lingual phenomena fixed by the existing dictionaries, but also took into account «facts of the modern oral discourse, reflected in publicist texts, TV- and radio programs, their own card of conversations register with records of conversations. Internet materials have also been extensively used…» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 8]. We agree that this particular approach «allowed to specify semantic structure and stylistic characteristics» of the words and phraseological combinations in both languages. Thus, the dictionary by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak is a good basis for compiling other Ukrainian-Polish dictionaries.

Having provided a comprehensive review on the dictionary, М. Kochergan emphasized that the lexicon under analysis is «an invaluable source for theoretical researches in contrastive lexical semantics of the Ukrainian and Polish languages» [Кочерган 2008: 103]. We support this high evaluation.

Comparative analysis of the lingual material of the afore-mentioned dictionary with the data of other phraseological dictionaries of the Ukrainian and Polish languages allowed realizing that although a majority of meanings of phraseological units coincides with those provided in the authoritative lexicographical sources, still we observe some irregularities that violate integrity of accepting criteria of lingual units selection for explaining polysemantic PU, in particular, this is absence in the dictionary under analysis of fixation of separate meanings of polysemantic phraseological units, which is stressed by other researchers (see: [Лозинська 2008: 213; Pietrzak-Porwisz 2006: 141]), e.g.: валити з ніг – ‘ударивши, штовхнути, змушувати падати’; до речі ‘зі сл. відповідати, говорити і т. ін. Так, як треба’; з головою ‘зі сл. поринати, поринути, пірнати, пірнути і т. ін. Заглибившись, не відволікаючись ні на що’; заходити в голову ‘напружено думати над чим-небудь, шукаючи виходу; згадувати щось’; мати око ‘наглядати, стежити за ким-небудь, за чиїмись учинками’; мати на оці ‘що. Пам’ятати, не забувати, знати’; на пні ‘перен., зі сл. посивіти, залишитися і т. ін. Незайманий’; biała śmierć ‘наркотики’; szczerzyć zęby ‘1. жарт. Усміхатися, зазвичай нещиро; 2. злитися, протестувати; 3. відкривати, показувати зуби’; wpadać w ucho ‘щось випадково почути’.

Explanation of the meanings of separate units, which in our opinion is useful, includes information representing peculiarities of phraseological units’ usage in specific speech contexts, e.g.: ані руш. ‘1. Ні на крок. Стій, ані руш’; за плечима ‘1. у кого, за чиїми і без додатка. У минулому. За плечима цієї немолодої жінки роки важкої праці. 2. у кого, за чиїми і без додатка. У доробку. У дослідника за плечима є унікальний досвід роботи з провідними біотехнологами світу’; jak noc ‘1. ~ смутний, насуплений, похмурий. Ponury jak noc. 2. Дуже бридкий. Dziewczynabyła brzydka jak noc’. It is necessary to note that in different speech contexts jak noc is used to intensify pragmatics of discourse words that are part of comparative constructions, particularly with meaning ‘very’, e.g.: Czarny jak noc; Brzydki jak noc; Ciemny jak noc; Chmurny jak noc; Ponury jak noc.

There are some similar examples: ostrzyć zęby ‘1. na coś, kogoś. Пов’язувати з чимось свої плани, з нетерпінням очікувати здійснення, появи когось, чогось. Ostrzę sobie zęby na nową książkę swego ulubionegoprozaika, która ma się ukazać na jesieni następnego roku. 2. Зазіхати на когось, щось. Gigant medialny ostrzy sobiezęby na lokalną stację radiową; postawić na nogi ‘3. Відновити сили, поліпшити настрій. Kawa postawiła go na nogi. 4. Мобілізувати, спонукати до дії. Informacja o podłożonej bombie postawiła na nogi całą policję. 5. Перервати чийсь сон, примусити когось прокинутись; розбудити. Wycie psa postawiło cały dom na nogi’; puszczać (pierskie) oko ‘1. По-змовницьки моргати. Autor puszcza oko w stronę publiczności, mówiąc: „Nie bierzcie tego wszystkiego serio”. 2. ~ Задивлятися на когось; виявляти зацікавленість, інтерес до когось. Podpity brunet z naprzeciwka ciągle puszczał do niej oko’; z godziny na godzinę ‘1. Раптово, несподівано. Z godziny na godzinę stał się bezrabotny’.

One can also trace that some dictionary articles are not overloaded with too many details about semantic structure of the PU, which seems to be fully justified. Thus, the meaning of the word equivalent на руку – ‘1) кому. Вигідний, зручний для кого-небудь; 2) для кого, кому. Вигідно, зручно кому-небудь’ which are included into the “Dictionary of Phraseological Units of the Ukrainian Language” («Словник фразеологізмів української мови») (see: [Словник фразеологізмів 2003)], in the dictionary by І. Kononenko, О. Spivak are combined into one – ‘кому, для кого. Бути вигідним, зручним для когось. Ситуація, що склалася, була йому на руку’

At the same time we consider formulation of the explanation of the phraseological unit w miarę as ‘1. Порівняно. Pokój był w miarę duży. Żył w miarę dostatnio’ to be inaccurate and offer to specify it – ‘стільки, скільки треба; якраз’, which absolutely corresponds to the data from the dictionaries of the Polish language and illustrations provided in it (see: [Słownik języka polskiego…; Skorupka 1985]). In addition, it turned out that phraseological unit in question can also be used in the meaning ‘так, як треба; нормально’ (порівн.: Wszystko w miarę. Nie za dużo, w miarę), which is absent not only in the dictionary by І. Kononenko, О. Spivak, but also in the Polish phraseological dictionaries. Taking all the afore-mentioned into account, as well as considering presence of the meaning ‘відповідно до чогось, залежно від чогось’, word equivalent w miarę cannot be considered interlingual homonym to в міру as in this case one can trace presence of similar meanings.

Certain inconsistency can also be traced in the criteria of selection of dictionary material. The compilers provide dictionary articles важка рука – ciężka ręka and мати важку руку – mieć ciężką rękę, however, do not include мати легку руку – mieć lekką rękę, but only легка рука – lekka ręka. Besides, the meaning of the polysemantic phraseological unit ciężka ręka as mieć ciężką rękę are marked as homonymous, cf.: Ciężka ręka. 1. = важка рука. Ojciec miał ciężką rękę. 2. Сувора, диктаторська влада. Generał sprawował władzę ciężką ręką. 3. Відсутність справності в чомусь. W filmie wyczuwa się ciężka ręka reżysera. Mieć ciężką rękę do czegoś [Regarding this see: Андрейченко 2011: 126]. Не мати здібності до чогось. Mieć ciężką rękę do pisania listów. Mieć ciężką rękę (see: [Винниченко 2005: 202]) = мати важку руку. Ojciec miał ciężką rękę. We shall add that phraseological unit важка рука at the modern stage of Ukrainian language development undergoes semantic transformation: clichéd meaning ‘хтось дуже сильний без особливих зусиль може боляче вдарити’ is redefined as ‘за рахунок сполучних можливостей’ and gets additional meaning ‘відчути жорстокість’. Знову стала помітна важка рука служб безпеки’ (see: [Андрейченко 2011: 126]).

There can be multi-aspect interpretation of the fact the phraseological units альфа і омега – alfa i omega are classified as interlingual homonyms. On the one hand, there is a statement that phraseological units of biblical origin are international and are equivalents (see: [Винниченко 2005: 202]), on the other hand, – there is complete difference in meanings, cf.: Альфа і омега. книжн. 1. Початок і кінець чогось. Все має свій початок і кінець – альму і омегу. 2. чого. Головне в чомусь, основа. Слово – альфа і омега кожної мови. Аlfa i omega. Незаперечний авторитет в якійсь ділянці, чудовий знавець чогось, найважливіша особа. Dziadek był dla malca alfą i omegą we wszystkichdziedzinach [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 308]. However, the primary meaning of the Polish phraseological unit is ‘beginning and end of everything’, that is God: I rzekł mi: «Stało się. Jam jest Alfa i Omega. Początek i Koniec» (Apokalipsa św. Jana 21, 6); nowadays it is mostly used in religious texts: Bóg-człowiek, alfa i omega, Logos, który stał się ciałem, ukrzyżowany został na Literze [Narodowy Korpus]; ... jako trawestację Objawienia św. Jana, w której sam Mickiewicz występuje jako, ni mniej, ni więcej, Syn Człowieczy, alfa i omega, czyli Logos [Narodowy Korpus].

At the present stage of Polish language development this meaning has been transformed into the following one: ‘незаперечний авторитет у певній ділянці, бездоганний знавець чогось, важлива особа’, however, the field of idiom usage is not restricted to animate beings as it is indicated in the description, cf.: Literatura francuska, cząstka literatury powszechnej, staje się alfą i omegą naszych uczonych (SFJP); Jeden wałkował Pink Floyd, wmawiając nam, że to alfa i omega współczesnej muzyki, a drugi dołował gotykiem, wszczepiając nienawiść do hip-hopu i życia jako takiego[Narodowy Korpus] Ukrainian phraseological unit has broader meaning, cf.: [Неофіт-раб:] Що за слово? [Єпископ:] Те слово – Бог. Він альфа і омега, початок і кінець (Леся Українка) [Словник фразеологізмів 2003]; Все має свій початок і кінець – альфу і омегу [Кононенко, Співак 2008], as well as the meaning identical to the Polish one. Therefore, one can state that these phraseological equivalents semantically are not fully adequate, they have only partial similarities in semantics and pragmatics.

It seems that there is no grounds to consider that idioms змокнути до нитки – zmoknąć (przemoknąć) do (suchej) nitki are homonyms as the second meaning of the Ukrainian PU: ‘обібрати, обдерти, обідрати, пограбувати, пропити і т. ін., and PU пограбувати до нитки is part of the semantic structure of the phraseological unit до нитки.

The compilers think that to the group of interlingual phraseological homonyms also belong the units ходити на пальцях and chodzić na palcach substantiating this fact with the meaning of the Ukrainian phraseological unit ‘дуже тихо, обережно, щоб не створювати шуму’, while the Polish one has additional meaning ‘ставитися до когось делікатно, догоджати комусь’. However, ходити на пальцях is explained in the Ukrainian dictionaries as ‘а) рухатися обережно, навшпиньках, щоб уникнути шуму; б) (перед ким) побоючись кого-небудь, лестити комусь, запобігати перед кимось впливовим, авторитетним’ [see: Словник фразеологізмів 2003] that fully corresponds to the meaning of the Polish phraseological unit. Thus, these are absolute equivalents.

Certainly, this new experience of lexicographing set expressions is valuable. However, the traditions should also be taken into account. In this respect it is necessary to draw attention to the monument of the Polish culture, Polish lexicography and linguistics, which, in our opinion, should be once again “discovered” for the modern science. It goes about the dictionary by S. Adalberg «Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych» [Adalberg 1889–1894].

It is known that S. Adalberg had been working on his dictionary since 1883 till 1894. His work includes about 5 100 key expressions, that means separate articles listing almost 30 000 paremias, without their variants. The material is divided into two parts: the first part consists of the material published before (all collections of paremias, ethnographical works, excerpts from the works of the most outstanding writers that had been published before the XVIth, XVIIth, XVIIIth centuries), the second part represents the materials that have not been published before. S. Adalberg was trying to avoid mistakes. Later S. Adalberg got acquainted with І. Bernstein, who opened for him his private library numbering more than 2 000 books with paremias. S. Adalberg was working with the old editions, manuscripts by Ya. Pshybylsky,T. Lipinski, etc.

While fixing paremias the researcher was guided by the key principle – represent them without any shortenings and changes, preserving even all archaic features and changing only their orthographic form. S. Adalberg compared the task of the compiler of the dictionary with that of the librarian “who should ideally place the books in such a way that the book under search could be found very quickly, without any difficulties” [Adalberg 1889–1894: 13]. “Subject Indicator” introduced in the book includes about 40 000 references and makes it possible to quickly find the paremias related to the key expressions. S. Adalberg provides brief but exhaustive explanations regarding usage of paremias, their origin and history, archaisms, dialectal variants, etc., sometimes resorting to comparing the information from the earlier sources. From the Book one can trace history of paremias origin and usage, get information on the collections where they can be found and where they were recorded for the first time, what variants each paremia has, what ancient authors had used it before this or that paremia was included into this collection.

As one can see, the work of S. Adalberg is an invaluable and rich source specifically for the Polish culture, as well as for Slavic, European paremiology in general. This work was the basis for А. Brückner, who in 1895 published his collection «Przysłowia, kartki z dziejów literatury i kultury polskiej», as continuation of S. Adalberg’s work appeared fundamental work by Ju. Krzyżanowski – four-volume collection «Nowa księga przysłów i wyrażeń przysłowiowych polskich» (1969–1978).

At the end of the ХІХ^th–beginning of the ХХ^th century in Ukraine paremiological dictionary was in the focus of attention of the well-known in Europe researcher Ivan Franko who highly valued paremiological collection by S. Adalberg, probably that was the reason why he so often resorted to this collection and used it to compile his «Halytsko-Rus’ Folk Proverbs and Sayings» [Галицько-руські 2006], providing Polish parallels, including source base of that dictionary as he “wanted to show what is the percentage of Ukrainian original proverbs and sayings and what was taken from Russians, Byelorussians and Poles…” [Франко 1986: 13].

The afore-mentioned collection of the Polish paremiographer is also used by Ivan Franko to compare the meaning of the Ukrainian paremia with its Polish equivalent, to find the ways of explaining paremias and specifying parameters regarding usage of set expressions, providing stylistic remarks as well as explanation of Polish and Ukrainian proverbs and sayings.

І. Franko as S. Adalberg viewed paremias in a broad way, broader than they are viewed by modern paremiologists even when they apply broad approaches to interpret paremias. In his opinion, similar to that of S. Adalberg, these are “not only moral, philosophical judgments, rules of life, but also certain stereotypical personal reflections, expressions of peoples’ feelings, curses, jokes, sarcastic wits, derisive jokes, comparisons and figurative expressions, as well as some basic magic formulas – „spells”, […] various parodies (of prayers, rituals, curse spells and even serious proverbs) […], some „outdated” riddles, which meaning with time became so transparent that people stopped thinking about them as riddles and used them as proverbs” [З фольклористичної 1963: 94].

І. Franko made a detailed research of interlingual borrowings. In the process of using S. Adalberg’s dictionary he set two tasks for himself – to find Polish-Halytsian correspondences, functioning in Halychyna at the end of the ХІХ^th – at the beginning of the ХХ^th centuries and to understand specific character of Polish influence onto formation of Halytsko-Rus’ proverbs and sayings he collected. The scholar enriched theory and practice of Ukrainian lexicography using S. Adalberg’s experience and developing his ideas. He collected huge amount of materials (30 000 of proverbs and sayings), recording it “from the folk”, including various published sources and manuscripts. It is evident that the Dictionary compiled by Ivan Franko laid foundations for Ukrainian-Polish and Polish-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary or dictionary of set expressions which is highly topical nowadays.

Despite the fact that there exists some experience of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography and paremiography, there are bilingual Ukrainian-Polish aspect dictionaries (dictionaries of homonyms, similes, word equivalents), however, there is insufficient experience of compiling paremia units as there is no parametric phraseological Ukrainian-Polish dictionary that would meet the needs of the society and modern theoretical lexicographical foundations. Sometimes dictionary compilers violate fundamental principles of lexicographic activity and even do not provide any comments regarding their conceptual principles in the traditional Preface. To such violations also belong attempts of the lexicographers to record not the established lingual facts but accidental speech (occasional) formations: in some cases their usage is not confirmed by at least three-time usage in discourse practice.

Modern dictionaries should be more consistent regarding provision of pragmatic characteristics of lingual units, in particular, it concerns discourse phraseological expressions – word equivalents. Illustrative material should be based both on the texts of classical artistic texts and the facts of modern live conversations which is usually in the focus of attention of the compilers of the dictionary under analysis. We also think that, fortunately, Ukrainian-Polish paremiography has good traditions in the form of the dictionary compiled by І. Franko who was ahead of his time and partially represented pragmatic parameters of paremias regarding peculiarities and specific features of paremias usage in different communicative situations, he fixed typical set expressions of addressees and addressers depending on their status (age, gender, social functions, etc.).

Theory and practice of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography and paremiography requires new efforts of researchers, first of all, elaboration of the modern original concept of the Ukrainian-Polish and Polish-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary or dictionary of set expressions that would correspond to the level of lexicography development, achievements of linguistics that is developing in the direction of interpretative pragmatics-oriented linguistics and would be based on the existing tradition.

References.

References

Андрейченко 2011: Андрейченко, О. Стилістичні функції фразеологічних одиниць у мові газети кінця ХХ – початку ХХІ [Текст] / О. Андрейченко // Культура слова. – 2011. – № 74. – С. 124-130.

Винниченко 2005: Винниченко, С. Конотація як компонент значення (на матеріалі українських, польських та англійських фразеологічних одиниць з компонентом вода) / [Текст] / С. Винниченко // Проблеми слов’янознавства. – 2005. – Вип. 55. – С. 197-211.

Галицько-руські 2006: Галицько-руські народні приповідки : [у 3 т] / [зібрав, упорядкував і пояснив Др. Іван Франко] [Текст]. – Львів : ВЦ ЛНУ ім. І. Франка, 2006. − 2-е вид. − Т. 1. − 818 с. − Т. 2. − 813 с. − Т. 3. − 699 с.

З фольклористичної 1963: З фольклористичної спадщини Івана Франка. Недрукована передмова до збірки прислів’їв [Текст] / [підготовка до друку, переклад і вступна замітка О. І. Дея] // Народна творчість та етнографія. – 1963. – № 2. – С. 94-96.

Кононенко, Співак 2008: Кононенко, І. Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і паронімів [Текст] / І. Кононенко, О. Співак. – К. : Вища школа, 2008. – 343 с.

Космеда 2014: Космеда, Т.А. Рецензія. А. Лучик, О. Антонова, І. Дубровська. Українсько-польський словник еквівалентів слова, К., 2011, 312 с. [Текст] / Т. А. Космеда // Мовознавство. – 2014. – № 2. – С. 85-87. – Бібліогр. : 1 назв. – укр.

Кочерган 2010: Кочерган, М. Рецензія. Кононенко І., Співак О. Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і паронімів. – К. : Вища школа, 2008. – 343 с. [Текст] / М. Кочерган // Мовознавство. – 2010. – № 1. – С. 100-103. – Бібліогр. : 1 назв. – укр.

Левченко 2011: Левченко, О. Українсько-російсько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь [Текст] / О. Левченко. – Львів : Вид-во Львів. Політехніки, 2011. – 748 с.

Лозинська 2008: Лозинська, О. Емоції у невербальному та вербальному вираженні (на матеріалі польської мімічної фразеології) [Текст] / О. Лозинська // Проблеми слов’янознавства. – 2008. – Вип. 57. – С. 209-221.

Лучик, Антонова, Дубровська 2011: Лучик, А., Антонова, О., Дубровська, І. Українсько-польський словник еквівалентів слова [Текст] / А. Лучик, О. Антонова, І. Дубровська. – Київ, 2011. – 312 с.

Мізін 2012: Мізін, К. Рецензія. Левченко О. Українсько-російсько-білорусько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь (Львів : Вид-во Львів. Політехніки, 2011. – 748 с.) [Текст] / К. Мізін // Мовознавство. – 2012. – № 9. – С.89-92.

Словник фразеологізмі 2003: Словник фразеологізмів української мови [Текст] / уклад. В. М. Білоноженко, І. С. Гнатюк, В. В. Дятчук та ін. – К. : Наукова думка, 2003. – 1098 с.

Франко 1986: Франко, І.Я. Лист до М. П. Драгоманова від 4 грудня 1883 р. [Текст] / І. Я. Франко // Франко, І.Я. Зібрання творів : у 50-ти томах. – Київ : Наукова думка, 1986. – Т. 48. – С. 383-384.

Adalberg, 1889–1894: Adalberg, S. Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych [Text] / S. Adalberg. – Warszawa : Druk Emila Skiwskiego, 1889–1894. – 805 s.

Pietrzak-Porwisz 2006: Pietrzak-Porwisz, G. Semantyka bieli w języku polskim i szwedzkim [Text] / G. Pietrzak-Porwisz // Sdudia Linguistica. – 2006. – № 123. – S. 135-154.

Skorupka 1985: Skorupka, S. Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego [Text] / S. Skorupka : w 2 t. – Warszawa : Wiedza Powszechna, 1985. – T. 1 (A – P). – 904 s.

Słownik języka polskiego: Słownik języka polskiego. – Access mode : URL : http://sjp.pwn.pl/. – Title from the screen.

Narodowy Korpus: Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [Text]. – Access mode : URL : www.nkjp.pl. – Title from the screen.

У статті зроблено фрагментарний аналіз досягнень сучасної українсько-польської лексикографічної продукції, враховано й традицію репрезентації усталених мовних виразів у польській і українській пареміографії. Проаналізовано специфіку подання у двомовних словниках усталених виразів, до яких відносимо еквіваленти слова і паремії в широкому їх розумінні (фразеологічні одиниці, прислів’я і приказки). Виокремлено й проаналізовано деякі методологічні недоліки словників.

Ключові слова: еквіваленти слова, пареміографія, паремія, українсько-польська лексикографія, усталені мовні вирази, фразеологічні одиниці.

Available 15 November 2014.